Here's one that I still haven't tested yet to confirm the exact effect but, while playing again recently, I was reminded of how the wording in this game can be confusing. Since it reminded me of this thread I thought I'd post it just for fun.
Nature's Vengeance:
When the wearer stands in certain surfaces (such as fire), and casts a spell that deals damage, the target also suffers the surface's effects.
Where it states "...and casts a spell that deals damage..." it never specifies whether the target must successfully be hit. If I miss, and I'm standing in fire, does the target still get burned? Must the spell actually deal damage or does it only need to be described as being capable of dealing damage?
The statement "...the target also suffers the surface's effects" is ambiguous, right? Does the target suffer "also" because the caster is standing in fire and is focusing on the target (two people suffer together regardless of damage dealt) or does the target suffer "also" because the target takes damage from the spell (both attacks actually caused damage)?
In summation, this is my issue with Natural Language Processing...just kidding (but also not kidding).
